AFL at Adelaide Oval - it will never happen (Part 5)

[Cap]

Ian McLachlan presser

Jo I can see your point of view but I reckon we will be better off (as both SACA and SANFL members)

 

[Cap]

@NT are you suggesting you deserve access to AFL games for no additional cost or just that you want first right to get into AFL games in the members area?

as for drop in pitches - I'm not fussed I don't believe they are a problem.

edit- I must admit I find it quite funny that people would scuttle a development of this sort based on "potential clashes".

They are likely to involve the Nab cup and the redbacks two things the majority of members have no interest in. It just appears to be an excuse to be negative

 

[NTRabbit]

@NT are you suggesting you deserve access to AFL games for no additional cost or just that you want first right to get into AFL games in the members area?

as for drop in pitches - I'm not fussed I don't believe they are a problem.

No additional cost. Considering what MCG members pay and what they get for it, I think it's entirely fair that I get to sit in the members stand for every cricket and every football game (with free tickets or discounted tickets for other events as per usual) for $300 a year.

If they want to charge me $1000 for both combined, then we need to go and find Darryl Kerrigan.

 

[Jars458]

No additional cost. Considering what MCG members pay and what they get for it, I think it's entirely fair that I get to sit in the members stand for every cricket and every football game (with free tickets or discounted tickets for other events as per usual) for $300 a year.

If they want to charge me $1000 for both combined, then we need to go and find Darryl Kerrigan.

Would you like a free nude massage from Megan Gale whilst we are it ?

 

[jo172]

from what i've heard, abstaining votes will be automatically granted a yes vote by the saca chairman

So you're suggesting they're going to break the law?

Nice $$$ for lawyers and a guaranteed way to scuttle this.

There is no way they're that stupid.

 

[jo172]

Would you like a free nude massage from Megan Gale whilst we are it ?

That might sway me. Is there a no touching rule?

I just want to be persuaded i'll be better off or at least no worse off. At the moment I'm satisfied of neither.

 

[Cap]

No additional cost. Considering what MCG members pay and what they get for it, I think it's entirely fair that I get to sit in the members stand for every cricket and every football game (with free tickets or discounted tickets for other events as per usual) for $300 a year.

If they want to charge me $1000 for both combined, then we need to go and find Darryl Kerrigan.

you live in North Adelaide don't you?

MCG membership is $500-600 per year (edit just checked it - I would hope we get a similar rate)

if you expect anything less your being slightly delusional or taking the piss.

 

[Cap]

That might sway me. Is there a no touching rule?

I just want to be persuaded i'll be better off or at least no worse off. At the moment I'm satisfied of neither.

I reckon that is fair enough - I would hope everyone who already has a no in mind goes in with a clear head (I guess the same should be said for all the people already voting yes)

When the SACA get around to giving out the info then people make the decision - but I hope we don't get a no vote for people with unrealistic ideals (full access for $200) or red herrings (being concerned about NAB cup matches not being played there )

 

[jo172]

I reckon that is fair enough - I would hope everyone who already has a no in mind goes in with a clear head (I guess the same should be said for all the people already voting yes)

When the SACA get around to giving out the info then people make the decision - but I hope we don't get a no vote for people with unrealistic ideals (full access for $200) or red herrings (being concerned about NAB cup matches not being played there )

Things I want to be sure of before I consider not voting no:

How much access to cricket I'll get in the x amount of years of re-development/after the re-development. If it's less at Adelaide Oval I'd want to be assured of a corresponding decrease in the cost of membership.

Access to this new Big Bash League Bullshit. I'm somewhat cynical as to what rights SACA members will have re this. I'd want something pretty concrete indicating that despite the fact I'd probably never go I'd still have the option to.

An upgrade of the existing members to iron out all the (and lets face it there's alot) wrinkles caused by the new development.

A guarantee that football be damned, any Sheffield Shield Final/Cricket match of significant importance will be played at Adelaide Oval.

See if a compromise can be reached on drop-in wickets.

Anything else I can get out of it.

Is this unreasonable?

 

[NTRabbit]

you live in North Adelaide don't you?

MCG membership is $500-600 per year (edit just checked it - I would hope we get a similar rate)

if you expect anything less your being slightly delusional or taking the piss.

I drove through North Adelaide once and attracted condescending glances towards my 20 year old Nissan, does that count?

The MCG members also get something like 76 games a year plus a chance at a Grand Final via a lottery. I'm happy to pay half that amount for only a third of the games and no Grand Final lottery, and I think that's a considerable concession.

I also find it difficult to disagree with any of what jo has said above ^

 

[NTRabbit]

Firstly, if SACA members vote NO as a negotiating tactic to get lower membership fees (or some other membership related self interest issue) than that's the wrong outcome and I would then urge the State Govt to legislate or do whatever it has to move ahead. Because, honestly, that's ridiculous.

If you don't want to pay whatever the final fee is someone else will. Unfortunately that someone else doesn't get the same voting right that you have and it would seem you would deny them that opportunity over a few $100.

Secondly, if there was a financial package put to you that you was satisfactory would you still vote no anyway. If so, why tell us about the membership fees or can your other objections be bought out? And, if so, what's your price? I bet the SACA have a sweetener of some kind for you.

Negotiating tactic to get lower membership fees? No, just asking for fair compensation for giving up our home.

The government will likely be unable to legislate anything, to do so requires the support of 4 of the independent, green, disability and the FF MLC's, something they probably won't get considering the Xenophon independents will probably block it until the Casino bridge is removed, the FF may do so out of hand as a favour to the Libs, and the Greens will want the sort of things Greens do.

The financial package is just one aspect of why I am voting no. I find it utterly baffling that people are angry that I have the right to vote, and even angrier that I'm not choosing to vote that right away.

 

[Cap]

I can't see fault in Jo arguements at all

@NT rabbit - I see you point - if the SACA had the same sense as the MCC all those years ago we would have the same deal.

the fact is they didn't and we are now making deals for today based on toda currency, the sad part is if people like your self give the no vote and we end up with a new stadium built we will end up in the same boat - i.e $500 for AAMI (which it is) and $250 for SACA) which it is.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

If the SACA members vote this down, they will only be perpetuating the South Australia (or Adelaide) stereotype and will be the most selfish thing a group of people can do.

 

[Gets!]

Vote YES YES YES.

There is no decision to be made.

 

[jo172]

If the SACA members vote this down, they will only be perpetuating the South Australia (or Adelaide) stereotype and will be the most selfish thing a group of people can do.

Also, if one more person expects SACA members to be the only self-sacrificing utalitarians in this whole scenario I'll consider voting no out of spite.

 

[robboaustralia]

I hope they have taken the roof off all the stands for viewing on the model purposes. That looks a little blustery.

They took the circus top roofs off the model so it wouldnt freak everyone out. Once approved they will put them back on!

 

[aneale]

from what i've heard, abstaining votes will be automatically granted a yes vote by the saca chairman

McLachlan was very clear that 75% of those members who vote are needed. The last thing they need is a 5 year court battle over what an abstaining vote means, it certainly wouldn't be classed as a yes.

 

[Nick30]

I am both a SACA and Crows member so I can see it from both sides.

But the reason I will be voting no is from a taxpayer point of view. I have three main problems with this development:

Future proofing

There is no scope for expansion, lets just say that the state government are successful in there attempt to increase the population and in turn more people want to go to the footy how do we cater for this. Everyone seems so obsessed with the difficulties we are having now they aren't looking to a successful future. If the logic is that Port fans will stream back to the footy once it is in the city surely the same applies for Crows fans, how do we cater for these new potential members?

Not attracting more events

We are spending over half a billion dollars and there is no indication we will be attracting any new sporting events.

Bang for buck

Realistically we are paying over half a billion dollars to add 12,000 seats, this isn't a good use of public funds.

 

[jo172]

Novel reasons Nick30!

I have great reservations about tax funding this but this vote doesn't seem like the place to express it to me.

 

[aneale]

jo did you listen to Ian McLachlans presser?

Members are not worse off - in fact better with 5000 seats in the southern stand included

i await the information pack being sent out but for me i'll be voting yes unless there is something really smelly

Forget the SACA members for a minute, and this is enough to make AFC season ticket holders think. I'm guessing this means that 5000 seats in the Western Stand won't be available to joe public. So the entire Western Stand will be off limits to season ticket holders as well as 5000 in the Southern Stand.

I'm guessing the AFC kinda hope their season ticket holder numbers drastically reduce before 2014/2015, because I don't see how the maths add up on this. Which has always been cause for concern to us as to why they would only build a 50,000 seat stadium.

 

[jo172]

Heard Olsen, McLaughlin, Conlon and Snelling went to Enzos last night for dinner.

To have been a fly on the wall!

 

[Marty64]

No additional cost. Considering what MCG members pay and what they get for it, I think it's entirely fair that I get to sit in the members stand for every cricket and every football game (with free tickets or discounted tickets for other events as per usual) for $300 a year.

If they want to charge me $1000 for both combined, then we need to go and find Darryl Kerrigan.

MCG members area only holds 1/5 of the members though from what I have read elsewhere.

I would pay the cost of SANFL and SACA combined if you had gauranteed entry for both.

 

[Nick30]

Novel reasons Nick30!

I have great reservations about tax funding this but this vote doesn't seem like the place to express it to me.

As I see it waiting for seven years for membership and then paying all the associated cost allows me to vote based on whatever logic I chose. But I do see your point.

 

[jo172]

As I see it waiting for seven years for membership and then paying all the associated cost allows me to vote based on whatever logic I chose. But I do see your point.

I'm not judging your logic. Your's is up there with the more rational reasons posted so far.

 

[Towely]

There is no scope for expansion, lets just say that the state government are successful in there attempt to increase the population and in turn more people want to go to the footy how do we cater for this. Everyone seems so obsessed with the difficulties we are having now they aren't looking to a successful future. If the logic is that Port fans will stream back to the footy once it is in the city surely the same applies for Crows fans, how do we cater for these new potential members?

No scope for expansion? I would say the Northern end which has been left open in these initial designs would be the perfect space to add another 8 to 10 thousand seats if required. In 10 years time when all the hoohaa of keeping the tradition of Adelaide Oval has died down and everyone is used to the new feel of the stadium, I would expect that this area would be looked at if the demand for more seats became apparent.

For what it's worth, I hope to hell that there is some creative vote counting from the SACA that takes place to ensure this project gets off the ground and quickly.